Article Data

  • Views 1093
  • Dowloads 258

Original Research

Open Access

Effect of Bonding Agent on Retention of Different Sealants: An in Vitro Study

  • Moaz H Attar1
  • Medhat A Abdallah1
  • Hussein A Alharthy1
  • Omar A El Meligy2,*,

1Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

2Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

DOI: 10.17796/1053-4625-45.3.6 Vol.45,Issue 3,July 2021 pp.177-185

Published: 01 July 2021

*Corresponding Author(s): Omar A El Meligy E-mail:


Objectives: To investigate the effect of Co-curing versus Staged-curing and No-bonding on retention of different resin-based sealants (RBS). Study design: For shear bond strength (SBS) and microleakage tests, 90 extracted premolars were divided equally into 3 groups (I, II, III). Each group was further subdivided equally into 3 subgroups (a, b, c). No-bonding subgroups did not receive a bonding agent, Staged-curing subgroups received a bonding agent that was cured before sealant application, while Co-curing subgroups received a bonding agent that was cured after sealant application. Seal-it was applied for group I, Helioseal-F for group II and Clinpro for group III. SBS buttons were tested using Instron machine, while microleakage specimens were examined using micro-CT. Results: Clinpro showed the highest SBS values in Staged-curing and No-bonding groups (8.72±2.39, 12.51±3.16) respectively. Staged-curing was significantly greater in SBS values than those for other groups (P<0.05). There was a significant difference in microleakage values of Staged-curing among different RBS (P = 0.003), while there was no significant difference in values of No-bonding and Co-curing among different RBS (P = 0.541, P = 0.521). Conclusions: The use of a bonding agent as Staged-curing was more effective in improving sealant retention than No-bonding and Co-curing.


Adhesive bonding; Fissure sealant; Microleakage; Micro-CT; Shear bond strength

Cite and Share

Moaz H Attar,Medhat A Abdallah,Hussein A Alharthy,Omar A El Meligy. Effect of Bonding Agent on Retention of Different Sealants: An in Vitro Study. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2021. 45(3);177-185.


1. Wright JT, Crall JJ, Fontana M, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants: a report of the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc, 147(8): 672-682, 2016.

2. Barroso JM, Torres CP, Lessa FCR, Pécora JD, Palma-Dibb RG, Borsatto MC. Shear bond strength of pit-and-fissure sealants to saliva-contaminated and noncontaminated enamel. J Dent Child, 72(3): 95-99, 2005.

3. Tulunoglu O, Bodur H, Uctasli M, Alacam A. The effect of bonding agents on the microleakage and bond strength of sealant in primary teeth. J Oral Rehabil, 26(5): 436-441, 1999.

4. Beauchamp J, Caufield PW, Crall JJ, et al. Evidence-based clinical recommendations for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants: a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. J Am Dent Assoc, 139(3): 257-268, 2008.

5. Ahuja K, Ahuja T. In Vitro Evaluation Of The Enamel Shear Bond Strength Of A Resin And Ormocer Based Sealant, Pretreated With An Antibacterial, A Total Etch And A Self-etch Adhesive. Indian J Dent Sci, 5(4): 12-15, 2013.

6. Asselin ME, Sitbon Y, Fortin D, Abelardo L, Rompre PH. Bond strength of a sealant to permanent enamel: evaluation of 3 application protocols. Pediatr Dent, 31(4): 323-328, 2009.

7. Dhillon J, Pathak A. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of three pit and fissure sealants using conventional etch or self-etching primer. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent, 30(4): 288-292, 2012.

8. Feigal R, Musherure P, Gillespie B, Levy-Polack M, Quelhas I, Hebling J. Improved sealant retention with bonding agents: a clinical study of two-bottle and single-bottle systems. J Dent Res, 79(11): 1850-1856, 2000.

9. Tandon V, Arora V, Yadav V, et al. Concept of probiotics in dentistry. Int J Dent Med Res, 1(6): 206-209, 2015.

10. Tirali RE, Celik C, Arhun N, Berk G, Cehreli SB. Effect of laser and air abrasion pretreatment on the microleakage of a fissure sealant applied with conventional and self etch adhesives. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 37(3): 281-288, 2013.

11. Aman N, Khan FR, Salim A, Farid H. A randomized control clinical trial of fissure sealant retention: Self etch adhesive versus total etch adhesive. J Conserv Dent, 18(1): 20-24, 2015.

12. Biria M, Ghasemi A, Torabzadeh H, Shisheeian A, Baghban AA. Assessment of microshear bond strength: self-etching sealant versus conventional sealant. J Dent (Tehran, Iran), 11(2): 137-142, 2014.

13. Jacker-Guhr S, Ibarra G, Oppermann L, Lührs A-K, Rahman A, Geurtsen W. Evaluation of microleakage in class V composite restorations using dye penetration and micro-CT. Clin Oral Investig, 20(7): 1709-1718, 2016.

14. Lucena C, López JM, Abalos C, Robles V, Pulgar R. Statistical errors in microleakage studies in operative dentistry. A survey of the literature 2001- 2009. Eur J Oral Sci, 119(6): 504-510, 2011.

15. Pinar A, Sepet E, Aren G, Bölükbaşı N, Ulukapı H, Turan N. Clinical performance of sealants with and without a bonding agent. Quintessence Int, 36(5): 355-360, 2005.

16. Schuldt C, Birlbauer S, Pitchika V, et al. Shear bond strength and microleakage of a new self-etching/self-adhesive pit and fissure sealant. J Adhes Dent, 17(6): 491-497, 2015.

17. Mali P, Deshpande S, Singh A. Microleakage of restorative materials: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent, 24(1): 15-18, 2006.

18. Raskin A, D’Hoore W, Gonthier S, Degrange M, Déjou J. Reliability of in vitro microleakage tests: A literature review. J Adhes Dent, 3(4): 295-308, 2001.

19. Raskin A, Tassery H, D Hoore W, et al. Influence of the number of sections on reliability of in vitro microleakage evaluations. Am J Dent, 16(3):207-210, 2003.

20. Swain MV, Xue J. State of the art of micro‐CT applications in dental research. Int J Oral Sci, 1(4): 177-188, 2009.

21. De Santis R, Mollica F, Prisco D, Rengo S, Ambrosio L, Nicolais L. A 3D analysis of mechanically stressed dentin-adhesive-composite interfaces using X-ray micro-CT. Biomaterials, 26(3): 257-270, 2005.

22. Chen X, Cuijpers V, Fan M, Frencken J. Marginal leakage of two newer glass-ionomer-based sealant materials assessed using micro-CT. J Dent, 38(9): 731-735, 2010.

23. Chen X, Cuijpers V, Fan M, Frencken J. Validation of micro‐CT against the section method regarding the assessment of marginal leakage of sealants. Aust Dent J, 57(2): 196-199, 2012.

24. Ak AT, Alpoz AR. Effect of saliva contamination on microleakage of three different pit and fissure sealants. Eur J Paediatr Dent, 1: 193-96, 2010.

25. Manhart J, Chen HY, Mehl A, Weber K, Hickel R. Marginal quality and microleakage of adhesive class V restorations. J Dent, 29(2): 123-130, 2001.

26. Kühnisch J, Bedir A, Lo Y-F, et al. Meta-analysis of the longevity of commonly used pit and fissure sealant materials. Dent Mater, xxx.e1-xxx. e11, 2020.

27. Placido E, Meira JB, Lima RG, Muench A, de Souza RM, Ballester RY. Shear versus micro-shear bond strength test: a finite element stress analysis. Dent Mater, 23(9): 1086-1092, 2007.

28. Etemadi S, Smales R, Drummond P, Goodhart J. Assessment of tooth preparation designs for posterior resin‐bonded porcelain restorations. J Oral Rehabil, 26(9): 691-697, 1999.

29. Mixson J, Eick J, Chappell R, Tira D, Moore D. Comparison of two-surface and multiple-surface scoring methodologies for in vitro microleakage studies. Dent Mater, 7(3): 191-196, 1991.

30. Gale M, Darvell B. Dentine permeability and tracer tests. J Dent, 27(1): 1-11, 1999.

31. Boksman L, McConnell R, McCutcheon-Jones E. A 2-year clinical evaluation of two pit and fissure sealants placed with and without the use of a bonding agent. Quintessence Int, 24(2): 131-133, 1993.

32. Pushpalatha H, Ravichandra K, Koya Srikanth GD, Done V, Krishna KB, Patil V. Comparative evaluation of Shear bond strength of different Pit and fissure Sealants in Primary and Permanent teeth-An In-Vitro Study. J Int Oral Health, 6(2):84-89, 2014.

33. Al-Sarheed M. Bond strength of 4 sealants using conventional etch and a self-etching primer. J Dent Child, 73(1): 37-41, 2006.

34. Mascarenhas AK, Nazar H, Al-Mutawaa S, Soparkar P. Effectiveness of primer and bond in sealant retention and caries prevention. Pediatr Dent, 30(1): 25-28, 2008.

35. Askarizadeh N, Norouzi N, Nemati S. The effect of bonding agents on the microleakage of sealant following contamination with saliva. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent, 26(2): 64-66, 2008.

36. Cehreli ZC, Gungor HC. Quantitative microleakage evaluation of fissure sealants applied with or without a bonding agent: results after four-year water storage in vitro. J Adhes Dent, 10(5): 379-384, 2008.

37. Birlbauer S, Chiang ML, Schuldt C, et al. Shear bond strength and microleakage results for three experimental self-etching primer compositions for pit and fissure sealing. Clin Oral Investig, 21(5): 1465-1473, 2017.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time